So the Marvel Cinematic Universe started in a good way, and this was technically Phase I (Not counting with the video games and comics):
-Iron Man
-Incredible Hulk
-Iron Man 2
-Thor
-Captain America: The First Avenger
-Avenger
So what's gonna be Phase II?
Marvel studios got the rights for the punisher back and said they have plans for a Frank Castle film, while the Ant-Man film is long expected to be the next Avengers member to go to the big screen.
Characters like Fantastic Four i don't expect Marvel Studios to have the rights soon, so i believe they may be made when MCU hits Phase III.
For Phase II i expect the characters less people know to appear.
And Marvel plans a lot of spin-off, so Phase II may probably be like this:
-Iron Man 3
-Ant-Man
-Inhumans
-S.H.I.E.L.D. or Nick Fury film
-Thor 2
-Black Widow
-Captain America 2
-Doctor Strange
-War Machinne
-Black Panther
-The Avengers 2
I didn't include Hulk 2 because unfortunatelly it may not have a sequel but if avengers is successful then marvel may plan a sequel some time after Iron Man 3, and i don't expect all thse films to be made in phase II, Marvel may only make 6 but only time will tell.
So, what do you all boys & girls think?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by childeroland

Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?

The majority of Bond movies are based on Bond stories that took place in the 50's but they were all adapted to the era they were made in. Same can be done with a character like Stark or mostly any character for that matter. Look at Sherlock Holmes. That's another character from another era and has been adapted to the present. It really is that simple.

The majority of Bond movies are based on Bond stories that took place in the 50's but they were all adapted to the era they were made in. Same can be done with a character like Stark or mostly any character for that matter. Look at Sherlock Holmes. That's another character from another era and has been adapted to the present. It really is that simple.

Sherlock Holmes was essentially a reboot/re-imagination. Same character. Same general time period. Avengers/Iron Man 4-6 wouldn't fall into that category if they are consistent with the approach.

The majority of Bond movies are based on Bond stories that took place in the 50's but they were all adapted to the era they were made in. Same can be done with a character like Stark or mostly any character for that matter. Look at Sherlock Holmes. That's another character from another era and has been adapted to the present. It really is that simple.

I agree. It is a very simple concept that worked very well in every medium. How can someone not get it? Unless someone chooses to refuse to get it.

__________________

It wasn't Marvel Studios that made me a Marvel Zombie, it was every other movie studio failing at making superhero movies as good as them! ------------------------------

Keeping Holmes in his original era was more successful, and as pre-modern-tech mysteries, many of the stories could not be directly adapted. Stark is a modern character, so he doesn't have those problems.

He does need to age though, recasts aside, sliding timelines don't do well for movie continuity. Also, unlike Bond, Stark is a character that grows, so recasting, but not continuing his character arc in some way would be off putting, and invite the idea of a reboot, even if the continuity doesn't match making messiness. I really don't like the Bond comparison.

Honestly, without adding any of my faves (BP, Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel) Phase II is pretty much just 'okay I'll see it' for me, like the third Batman. I'm not excited about it. It might be interesting, we'll see. Hopefully they level up Captain America, make his sequel movie really, really impressive, so I don't have to keep seeing Iron Man leading the Avengers in cartoons and stuff. Ugh.

Keeping Holmes in his original era was more successful, and as pre-modern-tech mysteries, many of the stories could not be directly adapted. Stark is a modern character, so he doesn't have those problems.

He does need to age though, recasts aside, sliding timelines don't do well for movie continuity. Also, unlike Bond, Stark is a character that grows, so recasting, but not continuing his character arc in some way would be off putting, and invite the idea of a reboot, even if the continuity doesn't match making messiness. I really don't like the Bond comparison.

Honestly, without adding any of my faves (BP, Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel) Phase II is pretty much just 'okay I'll see it' for me, like the third Batman. I'm not excited about it. It might be interesting, we'll see. Hopefully they level up Captain America, make his sequel movie really, really impressive, so I don't have to keep seeing Iron Man leading the Avengers in cartoons and stuff. Ugh.

So what happens when 5 years pass? 10 years? In the existing timeline and not real time. Stark is going to be played by Colin Farrel at that time? They need to come up with another explanation if that's not the case.

Banner is another guy. Does human Banner show signs of aging or does the Hulk prevent that? I don't know if comics provided an answer to that.

So what happens when 5 years pass? 10 years? In the existing timeline and not real time. Stark is going to be played by Colin Farrel at that time? They need to come up with another explanation if that's not the case.

Banner is another guy. Does human Banner show signs of aging or does the Hulk prevent that? I don't know if comics provided an answer to that.

Ever notice how they don't use real years to describe the setting of the Marvel movies? (Other than CATFA which took place in the past, of course.) Not even in the "official" Marvel Timeline, that the studio put out. Instead, the timeline lists events as "Iron Man +2" or "IM -4" or whatever, using the first Iron Man movie as its "Anno Domini" starting point.

Even if the Avengers films take place in a span of a few months, what happens when Thanos invades? All of PII and PIII are happening in a span of a few months or a couple of years? I don't know. Just seems unlikely. Almost improbable. At least a couple of years need to pass. I don't see Marvel retreading previous territory. So unless the timeline moves at a snails place, the chronology will lengthen and characters will evolve.

I like how TDKR supposely has very large time gap since TDK. If the third movie leaves enough flexibility, Batman 4-6 could take place in between that with a younger actor. Plenty of time to explore so many Batman characters. That's how I would do a trilogy overlapping many years. Have a trilogy consistent with the age of your cast, without resorting to using makeup and CGI to age/de-age actors unless it is a neccessity.

How long in the MCU timeline do you think "phase II" will take place after "The Avengers"?

I would imagine like 6 months at least, 2 years at most in the MCU timeline. That timeframe would allow for a bit of character development to really set in for IM, Thor and Cap in their movies, as well as the introduction of any new characters joining the Avengers franchise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengeME

Even if the Avengers films take place in a span of a few months, what happens when Thanos invades? All of PII and PIII are happening in a span of a few months or a couple of years? I don't know. Just seems unlikely. Almost improbable. At least a couple of years need to pass. I don't see Marvel retreading previous territory. So unless the timeline moves at a snails place, the chronology will lengthen and characters will evolve.

I like how TDKR supposely has very large time gap since TDK. If the third movie leaves enough flexibility, Batman 4-6 could take place in between that with a younger actor. Plenty of time to explore so many Batman characters. That's how I would do a trilogy overlapping many years. Have a trilogy consistent with the age of your cast, without resorting to using makeup and CGI to age/de-age actors unless it is a neccessity.

I don't like the idea of the next Batman movies having to be set in the Nolanverse after Nolan is out. It seems too restricting in terms of the types of villains that he could face as well as the types of heroes that could cross over.

So what happens when 5 years pass? 10 years? In the existing timeline and not real time. Stark is going to be played by Colin Farrel at that time? They need to come up with another explanation if that's not the case.

Banner is another guy. Does human Banner show signs of aging or does the Hulk prevent that? I don't know if comics provided an answer to that.

10 years of in-movie time? I have absolutely no clue. I don't know that the MCU will even cover ten years of time. If it does, Colin Farrel might be too old to play a superhero by then if they keep up the rate they're going. Oddly, Banner does seem to have aged quite a bit in the few months between TIH and Avengers. But you bring up a good point. This generation of stories may not be long enough in-universe for any given character to necessarily show signs of aging. But, if they do that, that would require recasts so that the characters don't appear to age at some point. Interesting.

Even if the Avengers films take place in a span of a few months, what happens when Thanos invades? All of PII and PIII are happening in a span of a few months or a couple of years? I don't know. Just seems unlikely. Almost improbable. At least a couple of years need to pass. I don't see Marvel retreading previous territory. So unless the timeline moves at a snails place, the chronology will lengthen and characters will evolve.

I like how TDKR supposely has very large time gap since TDK. If the third movie leaves enough flexibility, Batman 4-6 could take place in between that with a younger actor. Plenty of time to explore so many Batman characters. That's how I would do a trilogy overlapping many years. Have a trilogy consistent with the age of your cast, without resorting to using makeup and CGI to age/de-age actors unless it is a neccessity.

Batman wasn't even around in the 8-year (IIRC) timespan between TDK & TDKR....the whole point of TDKR is that it's the first time Batman has been seen in Gotham since the Two-Face murders.

As for how much time has passed between Avengers and IM3, dunno....it's safe to say that the very ending of Avengers, with the TV clips and interviews, probably takes place at least a few days (if not longer) after the Chitauri invasion. It would be reasonable to assume that the action picks up in IM3 *shortly* after Avengers, but how "shortly" remains to be seen.

No I don't think the next Bat director needs to be tied into the Nolanverse, or enslaved by it because of pressure from Warners.

But these Avenger "events" seem to be significant. If they happen annually, well then the world probably needs a whole lot more Avengers. I see events on the level of alien invasions and what not happening once a decade, or a few years minimum. I would also like to see a natural progression of characters. Where is Stark and Rogers at 5-10 years post introduction? RDJ would be the appropriate age to give us that in Avengers 2/3. Beyond that, no way he will still play the character, and recasting a much younger actor is basically reboot territory at that point because it doesn't mix if the timeline goes that far.

No I don't think the next Bat director needs to be tied into the Nolanverse, or enslaved by it because of pressure from Warners.

But these Avenger "events" seem to be significant. If they happen annually, well then the world probably needs a whole lot more Avengers. I see events on the level of alien invasions and what not happening once a decade, or a few years minimum. I would also like to see a natural progression of characters. Where is Stark and Rogers at 5-10 years post introduction? RDJ would be the appropriate age to give us that in Avengers 2/3. Beyond that, no way he will still play the character, and recasting a much younger actor is basically reboot territory at that point because it doesn't mix if the timeline goes that far.

I'm sorry....this sentence is wrong on all counts. But thanks for playing.

Also, why does Avengers need to be a blue-moon "event?" In the comics, it's a regular series, with the same monthly schedule as every other title in Marvel. In other words, just another day at the office.

It's the movies.. If they want to keep the series going, and RDJ wants to keep playing the part. They can just play around with their computers and make him look younger like they did with Bridges in Tron..

I'm sorry....this sentence is wrong on all counts. But thanks for playing.

So casting a 30 year old actor to play an aging Stark is the right move? When the actor needs to at least look the age and not resort to makeup and greying hair? Doesn't seem to jive.

In any event, I was watching Through the Wormhole last night and they were talking about resurrecting the dead with artificial bodies and preserving data within the brain in hard drives and what not. Maybe Tony Stark will go down that path as well. It just needs an explanation as such.

So casting a 30 year old actor to play an aging Stark is the right move? When the actor needs to at least look the age and not resort to makeup and greying hair? Doesn't seem to jive.

In any event, I was watching Through the Wormhole last night and they were talking about resurrecting the dead with artificial bodies and preserving data within the brain in hard drives and what not. Maybe Tony Stark will go down that path as well. It just needs an explanation as such.

While I think characters need to continue to develop and grow, I don't think they need to age. The only major Marvel character who has aged and moved from one stage of life to another throughout the comics has been Spider-Man. Tony Stark and Bruce Banner have been in their 30s for ~50 years in comics. Their characters have grown, but they haven't aged. It's the nature of sliding timelines in comics.

I don't think the movies need to be any different. Even if a bunch of time passes in the MCU and a lot of crap happens, I think Tony Stark can still be in his early 40s (or even in his 30s), Steve Rogers should still look like he's in his late 20s/early 30s, etc. and still be true to their characters.

So casting a 30 year old actor to play an aging Stark is the right move? When the actor needs to at least look the age and not resort to makeup and greying hair? Doesn't seem to jive.

In any event, I was watching Through the Wormhole last night and they were talking about resurrecting the dead with artificial bodies and preserving data within the brain in hard drives and what not. Maybe Tony Stark will go down that path as well. It just needs an explanation as such.

No, it doesn't. As Spideymouse said, sliding timelines have been par for the course in both comic books and long-running TV shows forever, and nobody has ever questioned the aging factor. Case in point: the Korean War lasted less than 3 years, while M*A*S*H* lasted 11 years.

MCU time =/= real time. Again: that's why they don't use real dates in the Marvel movies (other than 1942, in CATFA).

No, it doesn't. As Spideymouse said, sliding timelines have been par for the course in both comic books and long-running TV shows forever, and nobody has ever questioned the aging factor. Case in point: the Korean War lasted less than 3 years, while M*A*S*H* lasted 11 years.

MCU time =/= real time. Again: that's why they don't use real dates in the Marvel movies (other than 1942, in CATFA).